The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Pragmatism Not Idealism
flamebroiledchicken
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
concerned but powerless
an empowered and informed member of society
pragmatism not idealism
So, I was at a party last night and one of the coffee table books was Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook, so I started flipping though it just for shits and giggles. I'm no anarchist, but one of the things that struck me about the book was the plucky idealism of their philosophy, like they actually believe that if you reach enough people, graffiti enough billboards, hold enough protests, that you can actually change the world. I mean, look at this back cover:
So the owner of the apartment comes over and asks me if I want to read some more "hardcore" anarchist literature, and I politely brush him off because I realized that while I respected their vision, I will always be a pragmatist. I do not believe that an anarchist society is ever possible and I believe that they are wasting their time. They can live "liberated" lives, squatting in some abandoned building, eating out of dumpsters and railing against the system, but the system will never be smashed, and meanwhile I'll be living in relative comfort, so don't I come out ahead? (an aside: This kid was really a pseudo-anarchist in my opinion, because he had a nice apartment in the East Village and lots of expensive cocaine) I feel strange because I feel like artistic types like myself (I'm in college for creative writing) tend to and ought to be idealistic, but is it so bad to be a pragmatist? Not everyone can live crazy, no-rules Hunter Thompson or Jack Kerouac lives, and I feel that on a massive, worldwide scale, such a philosophy is misguided.
This is not a topic about anarchy or anarchist philosphy, but idealism in general. Are you an idealist or a pragmatist? Why? I suspect that most people on this forum will fall into the pragmatic line of thinking like myself, but I think it's an interesting divide in life-philosophies to consider.
an empowered and informed member of society
pragmatism not idealism
So, I was at a party last night and one of the coffee table books was Recipes for Disaster: An Anarchist Cookbook, so I started flipping though it just for shits and giggles. I'm no anarchist, but one of the things that struck me about the book was the plucky idealism of their philosophy, like they actually believe that if you reach enough people, graffiti enough billboards, hold enough protests, that you can actually change the world. I mean, look at this back cover:
So the owner of the apartment comes over and asks me if I want to read some more "hardcore" anarchist literature, and I politely brush him off because I realized that while I respected their vision, I will always be a pragmatist. I do not believe that an anarchist society is ever possible and I believe that they are wasting their time. They can live "liberated" lives, squatting in some abandoned building, eating out of dumpsters and railing against the system, but the system will never be smashed, and meanwhile I'll be living in relative comfort, so don't I come out ahead? (an aside: This kid was really a pseudo-anarchist in my opinion, because he had a nice apartment in the East Village and lots of expensive cocaine) I feel strange because I feel like artistic types like myself (I'm in college for creative writing) tend to and ought to be idealistic, but is it so bad to be a pragmatist? Not everyone can live crazy, no-rules Hunter Thompson or Jack Kerouac lives, and I feel that on a massive, worldwide scale, such a philosophy is misguided.
This is not a topic about anarchy or anarchist philosphy, but idealism in general. Are you an idealist or a pragmatist? Why? I suspect that most people on this forum will fall into the pragmatic line of thinking like myself, but I think it's an interesting divide in life-philosophies to consider.
flamebroiledchicken on
0
Posts
Also anarchism is dumb.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
As for me? I'm an idealist in my head and online. What's wrong with arguing the ideal while being practical in action? I think a marriage only to pragmatism is, well, complacent and boring.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Well, ideally...
I feel that pragmatism and cynicism get conflated a lot, and I want to make it clear that I'm not a cynic and I am, for the most part, an optimist- I just believe in a practical and realistic approach towards life and various issues; working with or within the system (incidentally, I don't believe there's a monolithic "system" out there whose sole purpose is to make us miserable) to change things instead of romantically (and naively, I think) railing against things without compromise. I just get a bit upset when anarchists and Radiohead (the quote at the beginning of my OP is from their song "Fitter Happier", for those not in the know) call me a soulless jerk for having a pragmatic outlook on life.
I'm a pragmatic, but I act with an idealistic goal in mind. A pure idealist will just sit and think.
and flamebroiledchicken: are you washing spiders down the plughole?
Anarchism, however, has roots in reality. The Soviets(aka worker's councils) and the Spanish trade unions that popped up are both examples of anarchism in the real world, workers taking control of their places of employment, voting for their leadership/managers and organizing with other unions to acquire resources to keep themselves running.
You might point out that the soviets and the workers councils were short lived, but they collapsed from outside pressure, not for any deficiency in their structure. The soviets were stripped of their power, often by lethal force, by the Bolsheviks who controlled the country, and the spanish worker's councils were put down first by the Facist Francisco Franco, and also by the Soviet forces who came to "aid" the anarchists and socialists against the Facists.
This.
You have to have at least some degree of pragmatism, because we live in the real world (so to speak). Isn't a pure idealist just a hippie? I don't know. But I do know that hippies suck.
Y'all should watch the documentary Protagonist, which looks at the growth and development of several people - a martial artist, an ex-gay preacher, a bank robber, and Hans Klein, a left-wing german terrorist active around the 60s and 70s.
Yeah but probably not for the reason you think.
irt "reaching people with messages is stupid";
How exactly do you propose we go about trying to catalyze change if not by reaching and swaying people?
I'm just saying, if it's that important to you that you gotta steal, why not grow your own tampons?
In an ideal world, tampons wouldn't have to exist. But let's face facts...women bleed.
Actually, I'd be interested in hearing why an Anarchist's cookbook is telling people to steal organic tampons. I don't really care, but I'm mildly interested in what that's all about there.
Are we cooking now?
Is whether or not the book is the topic of discussion the topic of discussion? Because about 50% of your posts are now about how we shouldn't talk about the book which is as much off topic as us actually talking about the book.
Incidentally, I live in a house full of anarchists. I am not one myself however.
Not so much said it was stupid as openly mocked the idea.
I like think I also reach for practical goals. I mean world peace sounds nice and all but I don't think it's going to happen. I like well defined problems and well thought out plans (not the stupid crap that book is spouting--actual plans) to solve those problems. For another example, I understand racism is a problem; I get it and I agree that it sucks. But so often I see groups whose goal in their mission statement is to "end racism", or "end racist hiring policies" or "promote a multicultural school environment". Worthwhile goals, but poorly defined problems with only the barest sketches for plans of action. I'm not saying this is true of all groups dedicated to ending racism (or sexism, or poverty, or violence, etc.) but it seems to be true of a large and well-funded majority of these groups.
I'm also a proponent of the "Act Local, Think Global" philosophy though with globalism being the way it is I have begun to reconsider this position.
heretic23
"Living weird is the best revenge."
This is kind of depressing line of thought. If you assume that things cannot be changed and therefore do not work to change them, then no, they will never change.
If this is the same Anarchists Cookbook that used to get passed around on BBSes then it actually is quite pragmatic: it ensures that any "anarchists" who start taking this shit too seriously end up dead or at least maimed.
Its full of helpful recipes for things like homemade napalm (basically styrofoam + gasoline) or nitroglycerin but lacking any info about the necessary safety precautions for these very delicate processes. It is in theory quite simple to make nitro out of easily obtainable legal products. In practice if you make the slightest fuckup it will blow up in your face.
It's not the same thing. They both have the name "Anarchist Cookbook" but this new one doesn't have any bomb recipes, just stupid shit like how to sabotage billboards and how to shoplift.
Idealism: impracticality by virtue of thinking of things in their ideal form rather than as they really are (2nd definition here: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=idealism)
Pragmatism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pragmatism&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=000)
First, are these definitions correct? And how do they mesh together if that's the case? (the definition of idealism seems a bit, biased.)
I have a very negative view of idealism (it seems delusional to me, believing the world to be shaped in your ideals rather than the way it is) but you all seem to disagree with that, why?
Pragmatism is too often an excuse for self-centeredness and laziness.
So is idealism not a perception of the world? What is it then? A perception of form or direction?
I feel like my conception of idealism differs significantly from everyone else's, as it's described I wouldn't mind being labeled an idealist but it doesn't seem to have any descriptive strength (in the sense that there is no scale, like liberal/conservative or anarchist/fascist or whatever other set of opposites often find people on one end or the other)